:smile: If only someone would just say here are the lenses you need - period - of course I know nothing works that way - so let me tell you what I've got and what I'm looking at and get some opinions - I shoot mainly sports (the usual, nothing extravagant, soccer, wrestling, hockey, basketball, baseball, tennis) and candids at the sporting events - lately have been doing some headshots for business cards and just getting started in a little real estate stuff - so here's what I have - D2h (2) SB 800 SB 600 Nikon 20 2.8 (used 1x for a trip) Sigma 28-70 2.8 (usually always on the camera) Nikon 85 1.8 (really just started using it for headshots) Nikon 70-200 VR Sigma 120-300 2.8 - w/1.4 converter And here's what I'm looking at Nikon 12-24 Nikon 28-70 (beast) or Nikon 18-200 vr thinking of getting rid of Sigma 28-70 Nikon 20 I've heard such rave reviews about the beast and the 18-200 - but really, do i need both? and the 12-24 seems more verstile than the 20 that i never use, but will need something for real estate work - i am headed to the local camera store - they allow me to take and try anything but I always respect the opinions I receive here - and i haven't hit the lottery yet so I can't just buy everything, even with the plastic:biggrin: thanks again, you guys are the best
The 12-24 and 28-70 seem like good choices. As much as I like the 18-200vr for travel and convenience, if you're starting to shoot for money I'd stick with the pro level lenses.
I have the 18-200VR and recently acquired the Beast. I also have a Tokina 12-24. My 18-200 VR is a very versatile lens and I've captured some sharp photos with it. However, the only sporting event where I'd want to use it is panning in a race. If you're in bright daylight, it's probably fine with other sports. However, you do not want this lens if you're shooting basketball or some other indoor sport. You'll have sharp bleachers and blurry players. I can't tell you too much about the Beast yet, as I've only taken it for one outing. The first thing I tried to shoot was a collection of baby ducks at f/2.8. Got the mama nice and sharp and a bunch of blurry ducklings. The DOF is finicky wide open. Yet, I wanted to try out my f/2.8 and I did. I also learned it's not appropriate for everything. The nice thing about the 18-200 VR is that you can get good portraits, wide angle shots both inside and out, and it covers a longer range. However, it's not your best sports photography lens. The 12-24 & the Beast will do the same job and do it very well, but it won't have the reach for your sports shots. At least it's faster than the 18-200 if you can get the players to come close to your location. There's always a compromise somewhere.
Thanks guys - I guess what i was looking for was to replace the 20 and the sigma 28-70 with either the 12-24 and the beast or just the 18-200 - i use the 70-200 and the 120-300 for the sports stuff
Well since you have the 85 f/1.8 you could get rid of your Sigma 28-70 and your 20 f/2.8 prime and just get the 17-55 f/2.8 Nikon DX lens. This would give you a good wide angle and zoom up to a good range with your next hop being the 85 f/1.8. Just another option.
You already have a Sigma 28-70 2.8, so you could hold off on "The Beast" till later. I have "The Beast" and love it though. Outstanding quality! You may want to test drive the Tokina 12-24 f4 if you're thinking about a wideangle. I have this lens and it's outstanding. I could have spent the extra $$$ and got the Nikon version, but there's very little difference in quality between the two, but quite a bit of cost difference. With the cost savings, you could apply it toward The Beast down the road (or maybe now, :biggrin: ). Happy shopping! John
Just got back from my local camera shop with The Beast (on loan)- I'm on my way to shoot tennis, baseball and will give it a go (for the candids and group shot) thanks for all the replies and help - it's always appreciated
Beware of the Beast. My mind told me that the Tamron 15-50 f/2.8 was fine for my amateur needs. Once I held all the prospective choices in my grubby little hands, I chose the expensive one. It's insidious.
The 18-200 is redundant with respect to focal lengths, but it's a nice, light alternative for a walk-around lens without carrying a heavy bag of glass.
bill, i have the grubby little hands problem that you encountered!! I feel like the seagulls in Finding Nemo - Mine, Mine, MIne, Mine, MIne - did I mention they want me to pay for it though! luckily they will let me put it on a type of lay away for now - While everyone was complaining about the weight, i really didn't notice or mind - I lug around the 120-300, so i guess I'm used to it - or going back to my earlier days as a pack mule when I had little kids in tow - i believe i made the right choice and am looking into getting the Tokina 12-24 for the wider end I will need for real estate shots - I'll sell the Nikon 20 that was used 1x and I put the Sigma on ebay - don't get me wrong, the Sigma has worked well for me, it's done everything I could ask and sometimes more -i hope i get some time soon to shoot for myself - thanks again guys
Steph, I'd avoid the 18-200 for your needs. I think your best combo would be either the Nikon/Tokina 12-24 and Nikon 28-70 OR the Sigma 10-20 and Nikon 17-55. Many times 17/18mm won't be wide enough for architectural interiors... so add a super-wide and one of the legendary Nikkors for all the other stuff, and you'll be golden!
